State v. Hefner.

Cook, I. His Honor did not err in sustaining the motion in arrest. When an attempt is charged, it is necessary that some act constituting such attempt should b*e laid, as the attempt is not per se indictable, and needs extraneous facts to make it the subject of an indictment. Whatrton’s Cr. Pl. and Pr. (9th Ed.), sec. 159. In State v. Colvin, 90 N. C., Ill (indictment for attempt.to commit burglary), the Court says: “Erom an investigation of the authorities upon the subject, our conclusion is that to warrant the conviction of a defendant for such an offense, it is essential that the defendant should have done some act intended, adapted, approximating and in the ordinary and likely course of things would result in the commission of a particular crime, and this must be averred in the indictment and proved.” In State v. Brown, 95 N. C., on page 688, the Court cites with approval 2 Wharton Or. Law, see. 2103:- “Attempt is a term peculiarly indefinite,” and adds, “and consequently the facts which develop the attempt should be set out so as to show that the attempt is itself criminal.” In State v. Crews, 128 N. C., 581, 582, the Court, in citing with approval State v. Colvin, supra, says: “This is not an attempt to commit another crime, in which case the overt act must be charged.” The principle being well established, we deem it unnecessary to encumber our records with a further discussion of the subject in this case. There is No Error.